January 30th, 2010 at 11:51 PM ^
Just as long as we get to play Ohio State at the end of the year and NOT end up playing them again the very next week, I'm happy.
Edit: I found a reason to sort of care. Unless they can arrange a non-conference game, we (Well, the Big Ten collectively, anyway) just took something else away from West Virginia: Their biggest rival...
January 31st, 2010 at 12:24 AM ^
Neither school is willing to give that game up. The rivalry is both even and intense, and they won't lose money by keeping it.
January 31st, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^
I'd be celebrating if I was WV..
Cinci loses its coach and Pitt leaves the conference... uhhh they couldn't be in a better position.
January 31st, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^
If Pitt were to leave, the Big East will be crippled in terms of football. Do you think they will maintain their BCS status? The MWC would have a better argument for being a BCS conference.
January 31st, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^
I don't think it will mess up The Game too much. It might change the frequency of other good rivalries, i.e. PSU, Iowa, Wisky, but we would be in the same division as tOSU. I think it adds even more(if possible) to the rivalry. Currently, one of the teams can have the B10 wrapped up, less divisional games means the chances that the game doesn't decide the division winner is reduced.
The only thing that I don't like is that we can beat tOSU, and only play for the B10(Big Midwest, Midwestern Conference)title. Traditionally that would be a huge deal, but the distance between UM/tOSU over the rest of the field has shrank in the last few years. I think it does make the conference more competitive in the eyes of MSM, which helps publicity, and hopefully recruiting.
BTW, I would still rather see Nebraska join.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^
I would think that the process of selecting a 12th conference member would take much longer. I'm skeptical it would be done so soon.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:00 AM ^
It's not like the Big Ten invites the public to observe its inner workings very often.
January 31st, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^
The name for the new conference will change only slightly, "The Big Eleven With P"
January 31st, 2010 at 12:02 AM ^
...this seems far too quick of a decision. I highly doubt that this has been finalized. Ofcourse, this would be the first time ever that an internet rumor did not end up being true.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:05 AM ^
Sounds good to me, lets roll. As for UM playing Pitt after OSU would not be probable I would like to believe the 'Backyard Brawl' (WVU/Pitt) will remain intact and usually played Thanksgiving weekend. But... maybe I should wait for this to be true before I start generating a schedule.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:59 PM ^
If it was up to me, I'd choose Pitt. Missouri would be my #2 choice.
It seems that the main advantage to choosing Pitt is that they are good at both major sports and strong in academics. The strength of Missouri is that they bring a new TV market, although they are weak in basketball and academics.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:10 AM ^
In basketball, Mizzou made the elite 8, defeating memphis and taking UCONN down to the wire in thier regional final.
Currently the tigers are 16-5 (4-2), a record michigan fans would die for.
*edit*: In addition, I feel that their football program could add more to the Big 10 than Pitt. Better coach, played in a tougher conference and actually accomplished more.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:22 AM ^
Pitt has a historical rivalry with Penn State, which would be rather beneficial from an athletic standpoint because it would give Penn State a true rival, as opposed to their fledging OSU rivalry or their annual beatdown of MSU. Furthermore, Pitt is a much better academic addition to the conference.
At the same time, I'm willing to bet that Missouri could bring in much more revenue, so I'd be surprised if we took Pitt when Missouri has already indicated that they'll come if we ask.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:34 AM ^
My problem with Mizzou is that they ripped off our logo. Let 'em pay the price by staying in a money-losing conference.
January 31st, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^
I don't know the whole story, but someone once told me that Michigan actually let Mizzou use the block M. But still, shame on them for their lack of originality!
January 31st, 2010 at 12:05 AM ^
If it were up to me I would throw everything we have at Nebraska, but since I guess that probably wouldn't happen I'd probably go for Missouri. Missouri would put the BTN in St. Louis and Kansas City. Pittsburgh just solidifies the Western Penn market which we should already have.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:27 AM ^
Does The Victors Board source anything?
January 31st, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^
Just about anything posted there is given a 100% credibility rating.
Believe it or not, earlier this year some dork there posted that he was hearing Michigan was going to schedule Wichita State to open the 2010 fooball season.
The post was pinned.
You get a lot of guys over there with incredibly fantastic stories, aned they make a ton of bizarre claims that usually start out with "I am hearing..."
Lots of fun. Well worth the 9.95 per month.
January 31st, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
Wrong Victors Board
It's from this board. Brian was a regular poster there until he started this blog and does post there occasionally. There are some insiders that post there and many more in the know. No one with cred of Brunk from The Winged Helmet (no longer posts there, isn't part of the new regime), but some very good info comes from there.
http://b5.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?user=Mabee
January 31st, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
I'm familiar with that board. I didn't post there much, but I used to read it now and then. I was reading it the day "Funkymoses" announced he was starting a blog. There is sometimes good dicussion there, but it's not really a good source for inside info. (It also requires that your computer have great anti-spyware proctection, because it's not a secure site.) I'd take this claim with a grain of salt.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:36 AM ^
At first I thought this thread title was an "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" homage. (If serious, it should be "Rumor Mongering is What the Internets...")
But anyway, the Victors Board is a pretty sketchy source. We need confirmation from elsewhere.
January 31st, 2010 at 2:44 AM ^
It's the internet, so is is spelled as iz.
basik kommon scence. i has it
January 31st, 2010 at 12:53 AM ^
I went to the Big Ten conference website, and here is a statement from December:
http://www.bigten.org/genrel/121509aaa.html
"Big Ten Statement on Expansion
Dec. 15, 2009
The Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) discussed the future of the Big Ten Conference at its winter meetings on Dec. 6 in Park Ridge, Illinois. The following statement is issued by the Big Ten office on behalf of the COP/C.
Penn State joined the Big Ten Conference in June of 1990 and its addition has been an unqualified success. In 1993, 1998 and 2003 the COP/C, in coordination with the commissioner's office, reviewed the issue of conference structure and expansion. The COP/C believes that the timing is right for the conference to once again conduct a thorough evaluation of options for conference structure and expansion. As a result, the commissioner was asked to provide recommendations for consideration by the COP/C over the next 12 to 18 months.
The COP/C understands that speculation about the conference is ongoing. The COP/C has asked the conference office to obtain, to the extent possible, information necessary to construct preliminary options and recommendations without engaging in formal discussions with leadership of other institutions. If and when such discussions become necessary the COP/C has instructed Commissioner James E. Delany to inform the Chair of the COP/C, Michigan State University President Lou Anna K. Simon, and then to notify the commissioner of the affected conference(s). Only after these notices have occurred will the Big Ten engage in formal expansion discussions with other institutions. This process will allow the Big Ten to evaluate options, while respecting peer conferences and their member institutions. No action by the COP/C is expected in the near term. No interim statements will be made by the Big Ten or the COP/C until after the COP/C receives the commissioner's recommendations and the COP/C determines next steps, if any, in this area."
Knuckleheads posting internet rumors have no clue about the lengthy processes that academic institutions engage in to do something like this. These are decisions made by academics, and NOTHING goes quickly in the academic world when it involves multiple public institutions having to agree on something.
January 31st, 2010 at 1:13 AM ^
Welp, if true, opposing fans are going to have a field day playing at Heinz. That place is always empty.
I'll get the reaction of a few Pitt students if they do in fact make the jump. I'm pretty curious.
January 31st, 2010 at 1:54 AM ^
Can we confirm that the head of the NCAA was on a plane to Pitt this past week?!
Someone get on his Facebook.
January 31st, 2010 at 3:33 AM ^
I just have a feeling that it's Missouri or nothing in this go-round. The flirtation has been so public and they're the best of the remaining the candidates in terms of increasing the conference footprint. The conference is not in a position where it HAS to add a twelfth team, they can wait it out for someone more attractive (maybe a post Boeheim Syracuse or even Notre Dame) to come into play.
January 31st, 2010 at 4:07 AM ^
Plus adding Rutgers, UConn, and Syracuse doesn't significantly reduce our ability to return to football hegemony within the conference (like adding ND might).
January 31st, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
I agree. I like adding a NY school to increase TV exposure. However, if we don't get Rutgers and/ or Syracuse then I like adding Pitt. This gives PSUck a high potential loss on their schedule.
Would the Big Ten Studios move to NYC?
January 31st, 2010 at 4:23 AM ^
When Penn State said Yes. Missouri said No. Eff them and ND. Pitt might be an alright choice. I was holding out for LSU or Oklahoma to join the Big Ten. j/k
January 31st, 2010 at 9:15 AM ^
Since the issues are academics and revenues, it might be worth seeing if Texas is interested. That would be a major win-win for the conference. If Big12 Teams are interested, why not go to the daddy of them all and see if the Horns might be prepared to move? Even Texas might be attracted by the additional $12m or so they'd get from TV if they were in the Big Ten.
And, obviously, the Big Ten Network would love to be in every TV market in the Lone Star State.
Missouri might be a decent second prize, but Texas would transform the conference in football AND basketball, increase revenues for EVERYONE and satisfy the academic side of things.
January 31st, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
It may be good for the Big Ten, but I look at this from UM's perspective. Why would UM want Texas in the Big Ten? We already have to play OSU and Penn State every year (well, almost every year), in addition to whatever other teams happen to be peaking at the time. Now we'd be adding another college FB powerhouse--and the one with first dibs on the arguably the country's deepest in-state talent pool every year. I understand that to be the best you have to beat the best, but realistically UM could never dominate a conference with Texas, OSU, and Penn State. We'd likely grab an occasional title here and there, but you can forget about the 4 and 5-year runs (like we've had in the not-so-distant past).
January 31st, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
Texas is Grand Poobah of the Big 12. They're not interested. They're probably also not interested in having to schedule two nonconference games if they want to keep their major rivalries intact.
January 31st, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^
Considering that Northwestern makes close to double what Texas does in television revenue, considering that Texas has less than 2 decades of history with the Big 12, considering that their two rivals (OU and TAMU) can be easily scheduled with room for a Nu-Big 12 conference, and considering that the rest of the U of Texas staff, accountants, research scientists, professors, and grad students would crawl over broken glass to join CIC, they're dominant role in the Big 12 really holds little sway.
That doesn't mean, however, that I think they will come. Growing up in Texas, I've had enough experience with obstreperous blowhard politicians that demonize everything north of the Red River to imagine a scenario where Texas politicians sign some kind of political block to ensure that the Longhorns aren't made to go play in the land of the Yankees.
Trust me: Texas isn't nearly as satisfied with being a big fish in a (relatively) podunk pond. I can say pretty confidently that the members and numbercrunchers of the university would love the Big 10. Other Texans and UT supporters would be initially more skeptical.
January 31st, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^
I think that's right. The political chicanery involved in Texas politics is a bigger problem - from the Horns' point of view - than the difficulty of arranging OOC games with the Sooners and Aggies.
Missouri might well be a decent fall-back option for the B10, but Texas brings more to the table, while the B10 offers Texas much more than they get - in terms of revenue AND academics - from the Big12.
Doesn't mean it will or is even likely to happen.But crazier things have happened.
And if the Big Ten wants to think of itself as "The Public Ivys" then Texas is a much better fit than Missouri or Pitt.
Financially and academically, Texas offers more to the conference than anyone else. But Texas also has a lot to gain from joining the Big Ten.
So, yeah, improbable but not impossible.
January 31st, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
Oklahoma leaving the conference they more or less own. It would be like UM or OSU leaving the big 10. I don't like MIzzou and the block M problem is real as I once ashamedly bought a tigers hat.
The Big 12 teams that are fairly desirable that might realistically jump are in order 1)okie st, 2) colorado, 3) arkansas who has no bidness in the SEC.
January 31st, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^
If offered I am sure Pitt would jump on it without thought just to be able to renew the rivalry with Penn State. They've been doing everything they can to play Penn State and Penn State won't have any part of it.
January 31st, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
than USC.
Edit: kidding
January 31st, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
I still say, we f'cked up by taking in msu when Chicago left.
They are like the in-laws that stops in for a weekend and stays a month. I just can't wait to get rid of them.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
rutgers would be best for increasing the footprint and getting a larger tv market. But they obviously don't bring as much tradition or cache'. Mizzou would be my second choice, but they'd have to fix their logo. Pitt would be a fine choice. I'm not at all excited about syracuse. and f*** notre dame.
i'm gonna laugh when i'm old and gray and nd is forced to join whatever remains of the big east/conf usa.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^
I'm not sure why it's automatic that Rutgers brings the NYC TV market. Nobody cares about Rutgers. NYC isn't a college football town. The BTN isn't in such high demand that it can force its way into everyone's home in NYC by airing Rutgers games. I think from a TV standpoint, Mizzou makes the most sense - they can get the BTN into STL and KC.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
Syracuse brings upstate New York, UConn is the closest thing NYC has to a Div. I-A college football program.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
So then you have to bring in three schools to possibly get the NYC market. I don't see how the additional revenue outweighs the cost of having three more schools to share with.
January 31st, 2010 at 1:20 PM ^
I ran this idea past a buddy of mine who is an assistant AD at a C-USA school and the first thing he said was that the member institutions probably wouldn't approve adding 3 schools to share the pie with. But since the idea appears to be under serious consideration (per yesterday's NY Times article), maybe the Big Ten has a plan of how they would pitch it to the existing schools?
Personally I don't have a problem with 11 teams. I would hate to lose that genius logo where somebody figured out that you can make an "11" from the outlines of a G, T, and E.
January 31st, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
Adding Rutgers wouldn't cause a sea change regarding the way New Yorkers view college football, but it would help. Having three of the titantic programs (Michigan, OSU and PSU) coming in to play RU on a regular basis would be a big deal, much moreso than their current "meh" Big East slate.
January 31st, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^
I think you're slightly off base here.
You're right, native New Yorkers don't have college football as a priority. MLB and NFL are more important. HOWEVA, native New Yorkers do respect RU, as it's always nice for a local team to have success.
Also, don't forget about NJ... it's the most densely populated state in America. When people talk about the NY market- you're really referring to the tri-state area.
January 31st, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
If the level of interest in NYC in Rutgers is "always nice for a local team to have success," then that ought to about sink the proposal right there. I mean, I like for Central and Oakland to do well, and if they happen to be on then I'll usually root for them, but I'm not gonna go real far out of my way.
January 31st, 2010 at 6:02 PM ^
NJ also has had runs of really fertile recruiting grounds. It's no Texas or Florida, but for the Northeast, it's a solid place to draw talent. Joe Pa had it locked down for decades prior to the recent Rutgers flash of success.
January 31st, 2010 at 8:30 PM ^
True. But, again, though academics and money will decide this, one benefit of Texas joining the Big Ten (however unlikely this may seem) is that this would open up the Lone Star State to the entire conference.
Sure, the Horns will have a lock on most of the prospects they really want but even they can't sign every valuable Texas kid. There's enough for everyone to share some of the spoils. Look at Oklahoma: 16 of their 29 recruits this year come from Texas.
But if Texas was playing in the Big Ten some of those kids might like the idea of playing *against* the Horns while also knowing that, thanks to the Big Ten Network being on every Texas cable service everyone back home would be able to see them play.
Consequently, the "down side" for moving "away" and heading north is reduced for some of these players. Maybe not a whole lot but you only need a few each year committing to non-UT BigTen teams and soon enough the overall quality of the conference might be likely to improve.
This won't be a factor in the eventual expansion decision, I guess, but it's another reason for thinking that Texas is the best fit.
A moon shot? Sure. But we put men into Space before didn't we? Indeed, isn't there a TV ad that has some reference to that fact...
January 31st, 2010 at 12:09 PM ^
Colorado still makes the most sense to me, but there's not nearly enough Pitt/Rutgers/Mizzou-like buzz for me to think it's even a possibility.